Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3d 35
I. Background
2
Dagnone owns a forty-nine foot 1993 bluewater yacht (the "yacht"). In 1997,
Dagnone purchased marine insurance on his yacht from NHIC, and renewed
the policy every year from 1997 through 2003. In 2003, Dagnone renewed the
policy once more, so that the yacht would be covered from September 18, 2003
until September 18, 2004. In the section entitled "General Conditions and
Exclusions," the renewed policy stated:
3
...
(d) Your yacht must be laid-up and out of commission during the period shown
on the declarations.
Lay-up Warranty: Waranteed [sic] that the described yacht shall be laid up and
out of commission and not used by the insured for any purpose during the
period from 10/31 (at 12:01 am) to 4/15 (12:01 am).
Dagnone's yacht was docked at the Goat Island Marina in Newport, Rhode
Island ("Goat Island") during the spring and summer of 2003. For the winter,
Dagnone decided to place the yacht in dry storage at Hinckley Yacht Services
("Hinckley"), located in Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Dagnone contracted with a
local captain, Ted Beaumont ("Beaumont"), to winterize his yacht and take it
from Goat Island to Hinckley. On November 22, 2003, Beaumont motored
Dagnone's yacht to Hinckley, docked the yacht there, and left the keys in the
yacht, per Hinckley's instructions. At this point, Beaumont had performed all of
the procedures for winterizing the yacht except for anti-freezing the engines.
Hinckley informed Dagnone that there were other boats waiting to be hauled
out for dry storage and that the boats would be hauled in the order in which
they arrived. Beaumont stated that he would finish winterizing the yacht once it
was hauled out. Dagnone's yacht remained docked at Hinckley from November
22 until December 6, 2003, when a storm struck the marina. During the storm,
Dagnone's yacht broke loose from the dock and suffered $38,327 of damage
according to Dagnone's estimate. After the storm, Hinckley hauled out the
yacht, and Beaumont completed the winterization procedures.
Dagnone promptly filed a claim with NHIC for the damage to his yacht. On
April 7, 2004, NHIC denied the claim, asserting that Dagnone had failed to
comply with the provisions in the policy requiring that the yacht be "laid up
and out of commission" between October 31 and April 15.
10
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review and Governing Law
11
12
A dispute over the interpretation of a marine insurance contract falls within our
admiralty jurisdiction, and as such, we will apply state law unless an
established federal admiralty rule governs. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v.
Pesante, 459 F.3d 34, 37 (1st Cir.2006). Because there is no established federal
admiralty rule governing the interpretation of marine insurance contracts, we
look to state law to interpret the policy. Littlefield v. Acadia Ins. Co., 392 F.3d
1, 6 (1st Cir.2004).
13
Both parties suggest that we look to New York law to aid in the interpretation
of the contract because the contract was concluded in New York and both
parties are New York residents. New York law generally construes insurance
contracts liberally in favor of the insured, but "where the provisions of the
policy are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their plain and ordinary
meaning." Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Kligler, 42 N.Y.2d 863, 864, 397
N.Y.S.2d 777, 366 N.E.2d 865 (1977). Thus, if the policy clearly and
unambiguously excludes coverage for the damage to the yacht, NHIC is
entitled to summary judgment.
Dagnone's first argument is that the exclusion in the policy for yachts that are
not "laid up and out of commission" does not apply here because the exclusion
only applies if the damage occurs while a yacht is "being used." Dagnone
argues that his yacht was not "being used" on the night it was damaged and as
such, the policy exclusion cannot apply. Dagnone argues that interpreting the
contract any other way would render the words "being used" surplusage, which
New York courts disfavor. See, e.g., Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection v.
Bank Leumi Trust Co., 94 N.Y.2d 398, 404, 706 N.Y.S.2d 66, 727 N.E.2d 563
(2000) ("Bank Leumi's interpretation would render the second paragraph
superfluous, a view unsupportable under standard principles of contract
interpretation.").
15
17
18
The fatal flaw in Dagnone's reasoning, however, is that his dispute with NHIC
is not whether the yacht had been hauled out of the water, but whether it had
been fully winterized (and thus placed out of commission). Both parties appear
to agree that full winterization was required to render the yacht laid up and out
of commission. Even Lovett states that if it was not possible to immediately
haul a boat out of the water, it was local practice to lay the boat up by
"plac[ing] such boats, completely winterized, in slips on either side of the piers
in wet storage for a reasonable length of time pending hauling ashore." Id. at
374 (emphasis added). Beaumont and the manager of Hinckley both stated that
in local practice, the final step in winterizing a boat was to anti-freeze the
engines, and Dagnone admitted that he had anti-freezed his engines as part of
the winterization process in years past. All parties agree that when the yacht
was damaged on December 6, 2003, its engines had not yet been anti-freezed.
Thus, the district court correctly concluded that the yacht had not been fully
winterized, and thus was not laid up and out of commission on the night it was
damaged. Because the policy excludes claims for damage that occurs when a
boat is being used during December if the boat is not laid up and out of
commission, NHIC is not responsible for covering the damage to the boat.
III. Conclusion
19
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
20
Affirmed.
Notes:
1
Dagnone also asserted a Rhode Island law claim against NHIC and filed a
third-party complaint against Hinckley, neither of which is the subject of this
appeal
Because we find that the policy by its terms would be breached if the yacht was
not laid up and out of commission during the winter months, we see no need to
address NHIC's argument that failure to strictly comply with a warranty in a